§

America's Best Franchising, Inc. v. Roger Abbott

No. 94002407 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2013)
America's Best Franchising, Inc. v. Roger Abbott

20 Cited authorities

  1. Brennan's, Inc. v. Brennan's Restaurant

    360 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 231 times
    Affirming denial of a preliminary injunction

  2. United Drug Co. v. Rectanus Co.

    248 U.S. 90 (1918)   Cited 547 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is a "fundamental error [to suppose] that a trade-mark right is a right in gross or at large" and that there is "no such thing as property in a trade-mark except as a right appurtenant to an established business or trade in connection with which the mark is employed"

  3. Hanover Milling Co. v. Metcalf

    240 U.S. 403 (1916)   Cited 545 times
    Holding that "[i]n the ordinary case of parties competing under the same mark in the same market, it is correct to say that prior appropriation settles the question."

  4. Allard Enterprises v. Advanced Programming

    249 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2001)   Cited 81 times
    Holding that under Ohio common law, the plaintiff acquired common law trademark rights because of its substantial use for over ten years in a given area

  5. Tisch Hotels, Inc. v. Americana Inn, Inc.

    350 F.2d 609 (7th Cir. 1965)   Cited 159 times
    Opining that if “prejudice could consist merely of expenditures in promoting the infringed name, then relief would have to be denied in practically every case of delay”

  6. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group

    637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Considering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"

  7. Stork Restaurant v. Sahati

    166 F.2d 348 (9th Cir. 1948)   Cited 191 times
    Holding that "The Stork Club" was an arbitrary trade name because a stork was "in no way descriptive of the appellant's night club"

  8. Rivard v. Linville

    133 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 23 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding evidence must be more than a mere denial of an intent to abandon

  9. Thrifty Rent-A-Car System v. Thrift Cars, Inc.

    831 F.2d 1177 (1st Cir. 1987)   Cited 35 times
    Applying the same principle to the related context in which the senior user obtains registration and yet the junior user established market penetration in a discrete area prior to such registration

  10. Octocom Systems v. Houston Computer Services

    918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 28 times

    No. 90-1196. November 2, 1990. Brian M. Dingman, Law Offices of Joseph S. Iandiorio, Waltham, Mass., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph S. Iandiorio. J. Paul Williamson, Arnold, White Durkee, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Before NIES, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. NIES, Chief Judge. Octocom Systems, Inc. (OSI), appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark